KolariU + Nikon 50/1.8 AIS

[Andrea B.]

I said I would try my KolariU on a non-UV-capable lens.

The flower below is a Delosperma (Ice Plant).

 

 

Reference Visible Photo

D610/fullSpec + UV-Nikkor 104/4.5 + Baader UV/IR-Cut + Sunlight

Conversion in Photo Ninja with D610 profile.

f/16 for 1/800" @ ISO-100

 

 

Reference UV Photo

D610/fullSpec + UV-Nikkor 104/4.5 + BaaderU UV-Pass + Sunlight

Conversion in Photo Ninja with D610 profile.

The petals are UV-bright.

The center anthers are UV-dark but not uniformly dark.

There is a diffuse, short, central pale blue bull's-eye.

f/16 for 1/4" @ ISO-100

 

 

Test UV Photo

D610/fullSpec + Nikon 50/1.8 + KolariU UV-Pass + Sunlight

Conversion in Photo Ninja with D610 profile.

f/16 for 1/13" @ ISO-400

I don't think it is a good idea to compare exposure values (almost the same) because the photos were made on two different days at two different times-of-day with two different focal lengths. We are only looking for IR leak here.

 

 

Crop 1 from Test UV Photo

 

 

Crop 2 from Test UV Photo

 

 

Conclusion

Nothing looks IR leaky to me with my particular copy of the KolariU when used on a non-UV-capable lens. But I will say that the Nikon 50/1.8 is a really *bad* lens for UV work. The flowers look kind of "glowy". The chromatic aberration is really bad. The lens is not sharp in UV. The flower's blue bull's-eye seems to be missing.

[Andy Perrin]

Ouch, that really is a horrid lens for UV work. Apparently there do exist Kolaris that function properly.

 

Well, I guess I enjoyed this ad for the UV Nikkor!

[Andrea B.]

I'm thinking that Adorama must have had a bad batch of those KolariU filters.

[Andy Perrin]

I think you're right, but I also think we should warn people away from their filters unless they want to go through a cycle of return-and-exchange. Plenty of other filters are available.

[Andrea B.]

I second that idea. I'm going to the Filter Sticky now.

[Andy Perrin]

Honestly, Kolari should do a proper recall if they had a bad batch. That is what an automaker does if they make a lemon. Yes, sometimes bad batches happen and they aren't caught in time, but there needs to be some transparency about the issue and a standing offer to replace them, and also a note on the webpage about the problem and resellers should also have the note.

[Andrea B.]

Totally agree.

I posted this in the Filter Sticky.

 

(2) Kolari Vision UV Bandpass Filter 365FWHM40

WARNING

We have seen here on UVP more than once a KolariU UV-pass filter which did not fully suppress IR. Some were bought directly from Kolari Vision and others from camera shops. At this time I must withdraw the KolariU from recommendation until I can determine that the problem has been fixed.

Link 1: Kolari Vision UV redness

Link 2: New member's first attempts and questions

[Andy Perrin]

Sounds good to me.

[colinbm]

Thanks Andrea.

I think the warning is a bit out of place & unfair to the seller ........ doesn't the S8612 fix the problem ?

Even though the S8612 needs a warning too......

 

If the filter was used in a pure UVA light source then there is no IR leak.

 

Isn't this a common problem with most UV pass filters, not just to this one particular filter ?

[Andy Perrin]

Colin, I strongly disagree that it’s unfair to the seller. These are DEFECTIVE filters not matching the specs claimed (as Andrea proved, hers blocks IR just fine, even with a bad lens.)

[Cadmium]

Andrea, I like your second to the top UV shot.

I don't see anything wrong with the photos in this topic, except the poor sharpness of some shots, which I guess is due to the lens, not the filter?

I have not been following this problem, but has anyone complained to Kolari.

I think the thing to do is call them and complain, then send your filter to them for examination and replacement.

Then test the replacement.

[Andrea B.]

I think the warning is a bit out of place & unfair to the seller ........ doesn't the S8612 fix the problem ?

 

Col, think about it. What is the point of buying a UV-pass-only filter if it does not pass UV-only?* I don't want any vendor cheating my members here. The seller has a big problem which they need to clean up promptly.

I.e., IR suppression is OD 4.0 or better.

---

 

Isn't this a common problem with most UV pass filters, not just to this one particular filter ?

 

Most well made UV-pass filters suppress IR to the level of OD 4.0 or better. The BaaderU has one area of suppression at about OD 3.5, the rest beyond that.

---

 

I think the thing to do is call them [Kolari Vision] and complain, then send your filter to them for examination and replacement.

Then test the replacement.

 

That has been done in a couple of cases. We have one documented here from two years ago. If Kolari doesn't know by now in 2021 that they have a problem with their KolariU, then they are being obtuse.

[Andrea B.]

Link: https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/3416-good-day/

 

Our member Nemo Andrea mentions his problem with the KolariU in his introduction topic. The faulty filter was replaced by Kolari Vision. This was in August 2019.

[Cadmium]

Yes, I see that Nemo Andrea opted for a replacement, but I don't see any info posted about replacement results.

Has anyone else received a replacement that resolved their initial result problems?

And I am not sure I see anything wrong with your tests above other than could be associated with the lens.

[Andy Perrin]

Yes, he reported his results with the new filter here:

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/3538-kolari-vision-filter-update/

 

After he white balanced properly it seemed to be fine with the new filter.